Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Before we begin today, I gotta show you something cool. This is the cover of the German edition of Hardcore Zen that will come out in March, 2010 fro Aurum Books. Neat, huh? I’m looking forward to doing some live gigs in Deutschland this year to promote this thing. Been listening to the German versions of the old Kraftwek albums (kindly provided by Christine – thanks!) to try and get a little of the language under my belt before I go.

OK. Now on to today’s rant.

So the other day we’re about to start sitting Zazen. And I say something like, “OK, let’s hit the bell and begin.” And somebody else mentions that in another Zen group they sat with you don’t say “hit” or “strike” the bell because those words are too violent. Rather, you “invite the bell to sound.”

And I said, “What if the bell likes to be hit?” I mean maybe the bell is really into being struck hard and begs you for it. It seems unkind in such a case to deny the bell what it most deeply wants.

Not everyone wants the same things out of life that you do. Those who want something different from what you want, or from what the majority of people want, are not necessarily sick and wrong and in need of changing by you into something that more resembles what you call "normal."

This, I think, should be obvious, especially to Western people interested in co-called “Eastern spiritual practices.” We are already minority members. So we should understand the difficulties involved in being interested in something that most people we encounter cannot understand.

And yet at Buddhist centers you often encounter these kinds of deeply held prejudices and deeply held compulsions to try to transform the people we meet into something more like ourselves rather than allowing them to be exactly who they are. In fact this tendency is often even stronger in people who are into very niche type things, such as Zen for example, than it is in the mainstream population.

In folks who are into Zen and stuff like that, this compulsion is often buried under layers and layers of unacknowledged self-righteousness. Of course if you’re into Zen you can’t possibly be interested in anything the rest of us who are into Zen would consider weird or (gasp!) kinky.

Much of what I see going on in the world of American Zen comes from a place of deep self-righteousness. It’s that same stifling group-mind that says, “Join us, be one with us, do what we say to do, be the kind of person we want you to be, if you conform to our ideals you will be rewarded with a sense of belonging. But don’t stray from what we consider correct or this will be taken away from you.”

But here’s the deal. If you join, say, a sesshin, in which a group of people decide to practice zazen together for several days living in close quarters, there have to be fairly rigid rules of conduct. This is something that’s atarimae (当たり前）to use a Japanese phrase. It’s something so obvious it feels stupid to even say it.

However, it does not follow that the people who attend such events must try and mold themselves into the kind of ideal person that the lowest common denominator of the group has envisioned.

To me, a bell is something that enjoys being hit. When a bell is struck it is able to manifest itself as a bell. If you fail to strike it, the bell cannot do what it needs to do.

If you try and mask the fact that you are hitting the bell by burying that action under some pretentious euphemism you’re not being honest with yourself or with the bell.

You have a responsibility to play your part. Sometimes you encounter a bell that needs to be struck in order to manifest itself as a bell. If you are too wrapped up in a carefully cultivated image of yourself as a person who would never strike anything, even a bell, then you may ultimately cause greater harm by not taking the action that is necessary.

Current popular culture has created an image of the ideal Buddhist as a timid person who fears causing harm so much that he cannot act when it’s necessary to do so. See this fine example:

It’s funny, I’ll grant you. And I am not at all offended by this ad. The problem is that you meet lots and lots and lots of people who consider themselves to be actual Buddhists who view Buddhism pretty much the same way as the people who put together this ad. People who try and pattern their lives after the caricatures of Buddhists they’ve seen on TV commercials and bad Hollywood movies.

Then the same thing happens as happens with any religion. In order to strengthen your resolve to be whatever thing it is you’re trying to be, you need other people to try and be that thing too. And so the group puts pressure on all of its members to conform. Those who do not conform are ostracized. And everyone left behind feels good cuz they’re surrounded only by like-minded people.

But the real world is not made up of people who think just like you do, or who, to be more honest, pretend to think like they imagine you think so as to win the approval of you and the rest of the group. If that’s what we’re cultivating in our sanghas, we’re not doing anyone any good at all.

Even more slippery than the compulsion to transform others into what we think they ought to be is the compulsion to transform ourselves into our own ideals. But those ideals are always based on the same greed, anger, and delusion we’re trying to uproot in our practice. This is why Zen is aimed at nothing at all except allowing what’s actually present to manifest clearly. Paradoxically, when we do this we can start to see what actually needs changing in our own lives and see clearly what must be done right here and right now to make that happen.

Kodo Sawaki tells a story in which he likens becoming a Buddha to becoming a thief. In order to become a thief you don’t have to practice for years and years to make yourself into the ideal thief. You simply walk into Amoeba Records, shove that new Metallica CD into your pocket and walk out. You’ll probably get caught by the big burly guys at the door. Or maybe you’ll make it. In either case, instantly you are a thief.

Same with Buddhist practice. You become a Buddha by doing zazen. The moment you take the position, you are a Buddha. No need to compel yourself or those around you into transforming into whatever confused ideals you have about what Buddhists ought to be.

This compulsion to change others and ourselves into our ideals is a significant problem, and one that I don’t believe gets very much attention. It’s the outward manifestation of a very deep misunderstanding of Buddhism that actually drives a lot of what passes for Buddhism these days.

If you’re going to say you accept everything, then, dammit, accept every-fucking-thing. Not just those things you find acceptable.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of things that truly need to be changed. But the things that really, seriously need changing are usually pretty obvious.

Buddhism isn’t about a retreat from reality into a kinder gentler world created in your own mind. It’s about making this world a better place by seeing it for what it is and doing what you truly need to do.

161 comments:

I really enjoyed this post. I've been going to SGI meetings lately and during a post chanting meeting, where I've noticed people to be very non-judgmental and open, we started talking about zen. Most of those guys knew nothing about zen and I was introducing the concept of sitting zazen to some of them for the first time. After I finished describing what zazen was, the first thing someone said was, "that's stupid." He then climbed atop his soapbox and proceeded to tell me why chanting is the only way to practice buddhism, and how it has been so important to his life and blah blah blah. I don't think it would have been possible for him to say a better statement to convince me that chanting HASN'T worked for this guy.

But maybe that's too judgmental of me. Just like the bell may like to be struck, maybe this guy likes to be a closed-minded sheep.

Regardless, I think I'll print this article off and bring it to the next SGI meeting.

SGI? You won't get too far promoting zazen among them, I'm afraid. Whoever is in charge will likely show you the door. Nichiren advocated that Zen and Pure Land temples should be burned to the ground and their priests beheaded, and that Zen was the work of the devil. Read more here: http://www.sgilibrary.org/view?page=579

Basically, the author says that Buddhists engage in violence just like any other folks, and that the presentation of Buddhism/ists as peaceful other-worldly folks denies their full humanity and normality.

"Not everyone wants the same things out of life that you do. Those who want something different from what you want, or from what the majority of people want, are not necessarily sick and wrong and in need of changing by you into something that more resembles what you call "normal.""

...like Kleenex Buddhists, who don't want exactly what you want out of life, or Buddhism, Brad.

I mean, my kinda Buddhism is very much like yours - Dogen/Kodo/Gudo kinda Buddhism. But those who prefer to "invite the bell to sound" aren't necessarily, as you say, "sick and wrong". We have to allow people "to be exactly who they are". Otherwise we're in danger of burying "those who want something different from what you (and I) want ""under layers and layers of unacknowledged self-righteousness".

Hey Brad, I was just wondering if you know if there's any non-sheisty Buddhist groups in Florida. >.> It's a long shot, but I figured I'd ask. So far the cheapest sittings I've found to attend in a group come for the low karmic price of $35 a month. Is it standard practice to charge money for sitting a regular session that's not the whole weekend sesshin thing? Thanks.

On the whole, this exchange reminds me very strongly of similar difficult conversations I have had hundreds of times with fellow sociology majors. Should there be limits to cultural relativism? Does agency exist? Is alienation a fact of life in capitalism which is impossible to prove or disprove since most everyone carries around false consciousness?

"British merchants - especially the East India Company - saw their chance in the import of opium. As the import of opium had been prohibited by the Chinese government during the 18th century, the only way to make profit by selling Indian opium was the smuggling business. During the 1830es, the British merchants systematically built up their opium import system and thereby met the huge demand of Chinese opium consumers and addicted people." source

When Buddhist Monks saw the systematic destruction of the Chinese culture by the Brits, they fought the Brit. Army with their bare hands - thus being called "boxers."

"The so-called "Boxer Uprising" (Yihetuan 義和團 "Group for Justice and Peace" or Yihequan 義和拳 "Fists...") in 1900 originally was only a peasant uprisings. The was the puppet government of China, the Manchu, and only later it redirected against foreigners. The "fist fighters" (Buddhist Monks) occupied Beijing and Tianjin where they killed corrupt Europeans and the Christians who supported them. An international "Joint Army of the Eight Powers" Baguo Lianjun 八國聯軍 relieved Beijing. The Boxer Protocol (Xinchou Tiaoyue 辛丑條約 *Xinchou is the year) imposed a heavy burden upon the Qing government." ibid.

The U.S.A. and others saved the Brits. The subsequent treaty stated that the Brits could sell opium where ever they wanted when ever they wanted to whoever they wanted. Thus opium became "the China Trade." The U.S.A. came to the rescue of drug dealers - hardly the first or last time...

Hey Brad, I am curious about something that to me feels a related to this post. It seems that if you compare the Zen versus the Tibetan traditions, you find a lot more exercises geared towards training some particular aspect of one's personality (for instance, the ability to feel compassion or to counteract feelings of jealousy) in the Tibetan tradition. I realize that sometimes compassion is not the stereotypical version that people have in mind, but can involve a lot of force. However, what is the reason Zen does not seem to have these kinds of exercises? Do you view them as some sort of self-improvement, self-help stuff that is not what Buddhism really is about at the core? Or does cultivating insight through sitting zazen ultimately lead to a more compassionate attitude too? Some people make a distinction between wisdom and compassion here and say that both are needed. I would appreciate your thoughts! Thanks!

'And somebody else mentions that in another Zen group they sat with you don’t say “hit” or “strike” the bell because those words are too violent. Rather, you “invite the bell to sound.”'

This reminds me of fluffy new agey aikido-bunnies who think Aikido is not a martial art. I can just imagine them saying: "Don't say, 'throw your opponent' rather 'invite him/her to the ground.'" I say: dump them on their ass as fast as I hit this bell. Oops! Did I say hit? I meant, invite to sound. DONG! SPLAT!

A number of goody two shoes type folks want to do things the 'right' way and they look to someone in authority to tell them

The fact is lost that whatever might be considered 'right' is a singularity arising from the situation/circumstance/participants etc. which comprise NOW out of which what one is to do arises.

People want a cookbook, they want to follow receipes

they want commandments, precepts

but if you know how to cook, you don't need a cookbook,

it isn't the precepts that get followed, it is something else: the law of the universe, or something like that

Brad's zazen is a DIY cook school: no receipes

The first time I heard the phrase 'invite the bell to ring' I was charmed by the phrase which grew too precious with use, the overuse of which makes it a smarmy 'and butter wouldn't melt in her mouth' type of phrase.

The person who originally said it, perhaps not even a native English speaker, might have been trying to convey their own relationship to the object 'bell'this would have been their relationshipand describing it might have been helpful to the rest of us

Sit around a number of people in charge of striking the gong or bell or han, or whathaveyou and you will learn a great deal about them: we can not help reveal who we are in everything we do--every little thing.We reveal ourselves all the time: Nishijima Roshi says zen is a philosophy of action and it is quite true that what a person does--what they actually do--reveals their beliefs more than anything they might say.In fact, the surest way to know someone's philosophy is to watch what they do, how they do it...The bell: what the bell gets out of me in that brief encounter is as revealing as the sound it makesAt least this is how I see it

Seems like everybody needs euphemisms these days. Softening language. It merely obscures the point and brings us farther from immediate reality.Every morning(okay, almost every morning) I get up at 4:30 and shortly after that begin to lead the Morning Bell Chant.In the evenings, though less often due to my work schedule, I lead the Evening Bell Chant.Not once have I invited the bell to sound, or sent it any formal notification of any sort. I sit down there and hit the crap outta that sucker. The bell hasn't complained yet.Like Zen teaching, the sounding of the bell should be a direct strike.

(I have got a lot to write. Perhaps I will write to Brad by mail. - However: -)

I think the bottom line is that people like you (i.e. - Brad, - in case it's not understood) should say to people who don’t have real understanding of Buddhism that they don’t.

At their own center I mean – people they know personally.

Don’t be nice.

People own ignorance should be clearly and straightforwardly presented – or if impossible – declared - to them, - and then these things won’t happen.

People often believe they acquire “Zen” understanding far before they do, westerners more than Japanese, and I might imagine Americans more than others, - and the teacher is the one to be held responsible for it and to tell them it is not so if necessary.

He is the one to correct it and I believe this is the point where the phenomena Brad is talking about could be corrected.

Perhaps my first couple of comments were too subtle. Most of you are still happily accepting what you hear Brad saying - as NellaLou wrote - without criticism or much thought because it agrees with the icon you hold in your mind. Unbelievable!

I think the bell needs a bloody great battering.

It seems the majority of you agree with Brad that "invite the bell..."/Kleenex Buddhists have got it ALL WRONG. They're laughable! They invite derision. They just don't get what we all get. They need a good shake up.

ARE YOU ALL STUPID?

Brad wrote: "Not everyone wants the same things out of life that you do. Those who want something different from what you want, or from what the majority of people want, are not necessarily sick and wrong..."

DO YOU GET THAT?

Brad wrote: "...at Buddhist centers you often encounter these kinds of deeply held prejudices and deeply held compulsions to try to transform the people we meet into something more like ourselves rather than allowing them to be exactly who they are."

DO YOU HEAR THAT?

Or are you so stupid and buried "under layers and layers of unacknowledged self-righteousness" you think it doesn't apply to YOU?

Brad wrote: "But the real world is not made up of people who think just like you do".

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

Brad wrote: "[the] stifling group-mind that says, “Join us, be one with us, do what we say to do, be the kind of person we want you to be, if you conform to our ideals you will be rewarded with a sense of belonging."

So true. THAT is EXACTLY what's going on with THEM. But not with ME. Not with US. Why? Coz we're immune to stifling group mind. Anyway, we got it right, and they got it wrong. They're only doing it the wrong way coz they're not immune to group mind...If I wasn't so pissed off at them, I'd be full of compassionate loving-kindness for the sad deluded fools.

Look, I happen to share Brad's frustration with these poor deluded souls who don't get what I get; who don't do it my way; who want everybody to do it their way - but I'm not so deluded that I don't see exactly the same attitude in myself; exactly the same "compulsions to try to transform the people [I] meet into something more like [myseslf]".

Brad wrote: "No need to compel yourself or those around you into transforming into whatever confused ideals you have about what Buddhists ought to be."

Well, no harm trying. We should say what we sincerely believe to be true. We should engage in debate. But, FUKSACHE! - don't feed the delusion that you're somehow different. Somehow RIGHT.

Layers and layers of deep self-righteousness...Thank God I'm not like that.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't Brad trying to make the guy who wanted to "invite the bell to be struck" (or whatever the exact words were) to be just like him? Why not just accept him as he is?

I came to believe that people turn everything "buddhism-/zen-related" into something so complicated - I sure as hell turned into something complicated my first few years of practice. But nowadays I have to admit that there's a high probability that it's really just way too simple.Perhaps people should throw in a couple of therapy sessions with a good shrink to get a better understanding of how the mind works (still practicing zazen of course ;) )But I'd basically say: jeez people, don't take yourself so seriously...

Words are problematic because they mean so many different things to so many different people. The important point is the action of ringing the bell and the action of hearing the sound of the bell are the same for all.

If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. -Noam Chomsky

Or, more precisely:If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -Ibid.

Sometimes when I drive down the road, it is my car wheels spinning and the road is lying stillsometimes when I drive down the road, the road and the earth under it spin away like a treadmill and my car and me are just carried along

'invite' is actually a lovely verbon occasion it might even be accurate

I think the original speaker who said 'invite the bell' may actually have had something to say

I think someone who hits the bell and then talks about inviting the bell is full of it

It really is best, when speaking of things, to speak from one's own experience, or to quote or give credit to the original speaker if the concept/words are not your own or do not convey your own experience

In a particular sitting group, the leader there seemed to bring self-consciousness to everything, even commenting in group about the quality of bows different people made in front of the butsudan...

self consciousness is a type of awareness, but it is an awareness which misses the point

I invite you all to sound off making your own particular noises just as I have

Great post, by the way. I would like to point out, also, that there are people "out there" who think that since you are part of a regular Sangha that you have to be a zombie and so they preach against it. Definitely not the case.

"Not everyone wants the same things out of life that you do. Those who want something different from what you want, or from what the majority of people want, are not necessarily sick and wrong and in need of changing by you into something that more resembles what you call "normal."

Are you talking about the Taliban? I know they like to strike their belles..

Jomsviking, $35/month sounds pretty reasonable to me if it's a center and they gotta keep the heat and lights running. We don't charge a regular fee like that. But I've often considered doing so because of the many times I've had to cover rent etc. from my own money.

Anonymous 7:13, I am pretty much always spanker not spankee.

Anonymous 8:32, in Zen we generally don't have such practices. Some Zen Centers in the West have incorporated them from other Buddhist traditions. I think they're kinda missing the point of Zen if they do that, though.

I've never commented here before, but I wanted to chime in on a pet peeve of mine: you should write "try to" instead of "try and." It's grammatically debatable whether "try and" is ever acceptable, but to my ears, it's grating, and it's all over this otherwise lovely blog post!

I guess I can't help but to try to mold others to my way of thinking...

Hi! I'm anon #108 and I am sooooooo right! I want to obsessively leave more comments on this internet blog to make sure that you all know how STUPID and DELUDED you are... and how I'm sorta deluded too, but my delusions are better than your delusions because I told you about them first, and you can't call into question how I act upon my delusions because I've already admitted I have delusions. Oh, and my delusions lead me to yell at everyone and tell them they're stupid, and that's better than your delusions where you think it's a good idea to let people to be themselves and not feel pressured to fulfill this sometimes bullshit image of the good practitioner.

You're right, I can be a silly sod - who thinks he's right. Does that never happen to you? But no, it doesn't make my delusions better than yours. And it doesn't make me right. That was my point.

Yes, I am aware of my shortcomings. Some of them. Sometimes. What you gonna do? That's a good thing.

But you do seem to badly misunderstand my intent. In my comments on this post I've been trying to point out that it's far too easy to call other people STUPID and DELUDED (as I thought to an extent Brad had done) - for they, as you demonstrate, will think just the same about him/us/me.

I guess it was the post at 3.17aM, the one with all the shouting, which really annoyed you. I'm afraid it was an attempt at satire. A kind of joke. I think they it call ironic hyperbole. Well I do. Never mind. I don't usually write that way. I did it to make a point, which it seems was completely lost on you.

So clearly I've failed - with you. Now you don't like me. Can't win em all. I blame myself. You should blame yourself ;-)

Great post! I've recently experienced how being "kind" and avoiding conflict can lead to some serious problems for myself and others. Everytime I have fallen into such ideological Buddhism the universe has destroyed it. It's like putting ideas into a box and labeling it truth. But the universe doesn't give a shit about what my ideas of truth is. It hurts like a sonofabitch each time this box is smashed to smithereens. However, it allows me to wake up (after the shock and confusion settle) to reality. At least for a moment, until I build another box and the process repeats. I recently had my truth (or faith) box smashed, but the confusion is starting to settle and I'm seeing more clearly.

I was taught that the dhyani mudra, hand-within-hand when meditating, was a reminder of Compassion and Wisdom together. Wisdom without compassion is an evil genius, compassion without wisdom is a doormat.

I sit with a Thich Nhat Han group. They invite the bell to ring. It seems to be part of an overall anti-violence theme withing his teachings.

Your mileage may vary.

I have a bell in my workshop, made of a pipe that used to be part of a crummy band saw before I invited it to be recycled. I strike that bell very very hard at the beginning and end of a workday. The noise wakes up the rest of the tools and reminds them that inferior tools get no compassion.

I try to be compassionate with animals, within reason. I apologize to spiders and say "sorry, better luck next time" as I squish them in a non-antimicrobial store-brand tissue.

We exterminate microbes by the trillions so that we can shit into drinking water.

"Buddhism isn’t about a retreat from reality into a kinder gentler world created in your own mind. It’s about making this world a better place by seeing it for what it is and doing what you truly need to do."

Many American Buddhists want to practice the compassion of watering the flowers, but not many seem to want to practice the compassion of pulling weeds.

The Barking Unicorn said...Rich said, "is the action of ringing the bell and the action of hearing the sound of the bell are the same for all." " Unless you're paraplegic, or deaf. Not everyone experiences this t-shirt the same way, either :-)

http://is.gd/6JX8N "

They feel the vibrations - you just need a really big bell -)I can ring a bell holding a pencil in my mouth. -) I love that T shirt, but why discriminate -)

"I'm trying to imagine a way that Brad could have talked about this without "inviting" (seriously!) the obvious counter-point of "hey don't be like them" is a form of indoctrination."

If I understand you...

Brad could have said something - just once - like "Of course, that goes for me and my 'zen Buddhism' too" . The fact that he didn't made me query whether he realised how every very good point he made about other's "deeply held prejudices" applies equally to him/all of us.

I thought that was worth pointing out. But you're right - whenever there's an opportunity to be devils' advocate or defend the underdog, I do get a bit "extreme".

Brad said:Much of what I see going on in the world of American Zen comes from a place of deep self-righteousness. It’s that same stifling group-mind that says, “Join us, be one with us, do what we say to do ..."

And anon#108 responded:

... made me query whether he realised how every very good point he made about other's "deeply held prejudices" applies equally to him/all of us.

Surely Zen is not a free for all where every idea and approach is good as another. There is delusion and there is enlightenment. It's the job of a Zen teacher to distinguish the one from another. If we're upset with conformity, we're upset with foolish conformity that doesn't make the distinction properly. It's no fault to point out the truth.

That's not exactly a fair edit, Jinz. Brad said much more than that, as did I. The response you quote was made to Matt's point, not that point of Brad. But still...

Yes, we must call it as we see it. But I suggest we have to be careful when we feel sure that our way is the right way. And we all do feel that, (almost?) all the time.

"Surely Zen is not a free for all where every idea and approach is good as another."

Well... for someone, somewhere, some idea and approach other than our own is not only just as good - it's even better! That's why not all zen Buddhists have the same ideas and approach. It's why one zen Buddhist doesn't have the same ideas and approach as the guy sitting next to him.

Is that simply coz one or other of them is deluded?

"It's no fault to point out the truth." That's a big ask. I'd rather say "...express an honest opinion".

I agreed with every point Brad made, Jinz (see my rants above). I only wished to point out, as Brad expressed so well:

"Not everyone wants the same things out of life that you do. Those who want something different from what you want, or from what the majority of people want, are not necessarily sick and wrong and in need of changing by you..."

I feel pretty much the same way about the kind of ideas and approaches Brad critiques as he does. That's why I sit with a Dogen Sangha group, and not an "invite the bell" group, or a Tibetan Group. I couldn't have it another way. Those guys piss me off. I've a feeling I'd piss them off too. Thank god I'm on the side of truth.

Whatever you think of anon 108 (used to be "Really" and "some brit" Im pretty sure) he's been posting for a while on this blog and I dont think you can accuse him of rudeness. Maybe you got a bit fed up with all theposts, so didnt read them properly. But he does have a point you know.

Gosh. This has gotten freaky. There seem to be a number of Anon. #108s. So I have no idea how to respond anymore. Anyway, it's nice to have contributions and I appreciate what some of him (since there appear to be multiples) have said.

As for the comment (not from #108, I think)about punks dressing alike, this is a criticism you hear a lot. And there certainly is conformity in the scene and was at the time I was part of it.

But I think lots of the criticism along these lines comes from people who weren't really part of the scene, but went by the media image of it. The mainstream media always depicted punks with a uniform of the leather motorcycle jacket, army boots and mohawk.

Yet if you actually attended shows, those guys were the minority and there was actually quite a lot of variation. The mainstream media needed an image that viewers would instantly recognize as "a punk" and that's the one they chose, among the many other available.

I can:http://www.northern.ac.uk/learning/NCMaterial/Psychology/lifespan%20folder/PAVLOV.gifThe bell just conditions you to feel all spiritualSee also:http://9.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_krxzsoULGU1qzp3ido1_500.jpgandhttp://brandingadvice.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pavlovsbeagle.jpg

You are going to be happier now. But please don't say that zen buddhist trolls forced you to do anything. There is no such things as a zen buddhist troll and no one can be forced to do anything they don't want to.

Great gig, that those guys translated your book to German. I think there might be some people looking forward to it. I had to work me through the original stuff an it was hard work sometime.It would be cool if there will be some seshin so there is a possibility to sit with you.

Yeah, a few years ago in a Sangha where I was practicing, it became a popular notion of “inviting the bell to ring” as opposed to whacking it one (of course, hitting one of those big bells with too big a whack can cost you a few hundred bucks and create all sorts of un-Zen like emotions one to another). This “inviting the bell” really irritated me, but I kept my mouth shut. At home I “hit” the bell and at the Zendo if those folks wanted to “invite” the bell. I could live with it. I enjoyed the sitting. Once the bell was hit and everybody bowed it didn’t make any difference. I was staring at the wall, my posture was good, my breathing was good, the energy of folks all sitting in silence was good. And the dharma talks gave me some food to take home for another week of my own practice. Oh, yes. It was all good, as they say. Well, years passed and one morning I was sitting down to practice in my own office all by my lonesome and it occurred to me, “Well, Bobby, invite the bell to ring.” And so I did. It was a nice feeling. That bell had that sound inside it and it wanted me to allow it to ring. Strange. So I “invited” the bell to ring. It sounded just like it sounded when I hit it. But I was able to throw some of the trash out of my heart.

I think one point missed by some of the commenters here is that language, something already removed from reality by at least one dimension, becomes an even weaker tool when words are distorted and people use a term too loosely, or use euphemisms to avoid accurately describing an action or event. Zen, for instance, is a word used to specify a particular religious tradition with a particular set of practices. Certainly, there have been disagreements and splits within that long tradition, but what's important, and what allows the word zen to have any meaning at all, is that it points to the things all those or at least the vast majority of the practitioners within that tradition had in common. So, first and foremost, zen means zazen. If you aren't doing zazen you can't call it zen. But there are other things too, and one of the things, which actually drew many of us to this particular religious tradition, is that zen has never been a tradition of political correctness or sugar coating reality. It hasn't traditionally been a soft and cuddly, warm-fuzzies kind of tradition. And we like it that way. Soft and cuddly type of people are certainly welcome to participate in the tradition, but should recognize that the soft and cuddly aspect is themselves, not the tradition, per se. Or, someone who wants to start a new tradition, a soft and cuddly tradition, that brings elements of Zen into it, like the practice of zazen, etc. That's fine too, just don't call your new tradition Zen. If any and everything gets called Zen, Zen disappears. So, sure, that soft and cuddly person is welcome to "invite the bell to sound" or whatever else makes their warm-n-fuzzy heart melt with glee, but to show up as a visitor in a sangha and correct the teacher there, that's just wrong, and it is very different from what Brad was doing in his blog. Brad was drawing attention to a certain misperception common here in the West that weakens our language and our tradition by calling a set of behaviors which simply are not part of the long tradition of Zen, Zen. This is not the same thing as someone actively trying to nudge other people to conform. Brad wasn't trying to tell the soft and cuddly people they can't be soft and cuddly, he was just saying that soft and cuddly isn't part of the tradition they are taking part in, and they can accept that, or they can do something else, but they don't have the right to expect the whole tradition to do things their way, when that isn't how the tradition has been practiced, traditionally.

"f you try and mask the fact that you are hitting the bell by burying that action under some pretentious euphemism you’re not being honest with yourself or with the bell. "

On the other hand by 'inviting the bell to sound' one is manifesting a different state of mind/thinking, which is not necessarily "pretentious" but instead less dualistic. The ideas of 'bell' and 'me' are less rigid when one thinks in this way possibly.

It all works for some folks and not others, so as ever one has to find a group and a practice that feels right.

And I meant to write that 'inviting the bell to sound' is (if my memory is correct) something practiced in groups associated with Ven Thich Nhat Hanh's 'Plum Village' sangha.

I also eem to recall that Brad has admitted not having studied that form of Zen practice.

Therefore whilst I 'get' where Brad is coming from in his post, it may be worth bearing in mind that this is just one part of the practice and as such taking it out of context and using it to make a wider point is a bit unfair.

If one reads a few of TNH's books it becomes clear how this fits into the big picture.

I read your posts, Brad, and I enjoy them. You know how to bring in your own sense of conflict, and where you feel it most in your practice, and you are alive to it; ain't it so.

I'd like to say that in my experience, there are many different faiths that bring people to grace. Many if not all of them have a core experience, and an understanding of that core experience that constitutes the teaching. Zen is no different in that regard than many other religions.

Oftentimes people rely on faith alone; their faith somehow works for them, at a level that is deeper than they understand (and they often assume that's how it is for everyone). Zen is a little different, in the emphasis on posture; other faiths have prayer practices too, but they are not always front and center the way Zen is. Nevertheless, ask a Zen teacher how to sit the lotus without pain, and you will mostly get garbage; a study of South Pacific navigators revealed they could navigate over the horizon at night in a fog between islands, but their explanation of how they did it was garbage too. The genius of western and eastern civilization, in my opinion, is in the description of the essential relationships that underlie our reality; these descriptions require the use of both the right brain and the left brain, linear analysis as well as holistic incorporation (if I may describe right-brain activity with such a phrase). So how do I sit the lotus without pain, and what does the action of Zen have to do with posture; these are the questions I feel I must answer for myself and for others, in the language of the underlying relationships of the human experience.